Talk:Hajnal Ban

Notability

This politician has gained national and international media attention for her cosmetic surgery and written two books about it (one is yet unpublished). As reported on nine news the original book was a 'best seller', but was pulled from the market after the first edition run. References will be added, but I can't work out how to add them correctly yet. This entry took an enormous amount of research and time to collate to put on the site. Hajnal Ban has the same level of notability as Nicole Cornes and has room to move in her career. Please don't remove yet as sources and added information including the launch of her book in several weeks will only add to her notability. Kind regards. --Propertysouth (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This reads like a press release a suspicion that is only enhanced by the fact that this sheila's own website has a link to this article thus: Hajnal’s full biography can be found on her Wikipedia entry.. Failing some evidence of actual notability I shall tag this page for deletion. Silent Billy (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

hmmm... looks like it has survived already... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hajnal Ban Silent Billy (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This listing is clearly a vanity page and should be removed. The book crashed and burned and she has no public profile apart from her political career which she is clearly trying to promote. If you look at the user page for Propertysouth (who created the listing) it is a mini version of the same article. Xxxmicrobexxx (talk)

How do biased newspaper articles constitute actual references. Much of this is skewed toward a vain attempt at providing a positive view of a politician who, like her cohorts, has caused more dissent and drama in her division than anything actually achieved (Mentions in local papers DO NOT constitute achievements). Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.185.137 (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As above, the editorial comment from the newspaper article has been removed. It is not the common opinion, and I'm sure it is not the official opinion of LCC. If someone is so precious as to have to resort to this some of self promotion, then they should probably not be on Wikipedia. Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.185.137 (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Xxxmicrobexxx and Silent Billy - I guess I'm not the only one who thinks property south is real estate agent Sean Black??? Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.185.137 (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This page has changes that clearly breach policy Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons - the proposed changes are not a dignified entry and aims to add events that have not yet happened or are speculation. Many comments have even been defamatory. The additions made by me are factual, based in sources and correct. I ask that futher changes not be made to the dis-endorsement section. Can I please have support in this from administrators!! Furthermore, you can manage an estate for someone who is alive, many estates are managed for living people, eg the Prince of Wales has his estate managed by trustees. These comments are hurtful, talking about a ‘dead body’. They are vulgar in the extreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Propertysouth (talk • contribs) 09:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

RE most recent changes to page 1) "In the midst of the Court proceedings" - court proceeding never occured, matter was mediated BEFORE a Tribunal hearing was ever attended. This was atribunal matter, not a court matter. And the change "court action was never disclosed to the vetting committee". 'Court' (tribunal) action was never disclosed to vetting committee as there was no 'court action' to disclose. Vetting committee occured in October 2009, and there is no record of the Adult Guardian even starting proceedings or action or in fact anything back at the time of the vetting committee. Hence why Ban says the LNP 'claimed" this was the case. Unless the changes can be verified with actual primary sources and quotes they are purley malicous. Propertysouth (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have changed many edits to this page as they are nonfactual, biased and victimise the person. Most entries that I changed or altered violate the following wiki policies; “Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many countries repeating defamatory claims is actionable, and there is additional protection for people who are not public figures.” Worse still some edits clearly violate this policy; “When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.” Some of the edits of spacecadet are particularly vulgar, and include the words “there is no dead body so no estate can be managed”. This is insensitive, as I would imagine the Ban family are grieving the demise of a close family member and these edits are designed to hurt and reduce the dignity of the entry. Propertysouth (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)